Mathetes

I think that the translation you pointed to is fine. It is a simple passage.

What are you looking for?

Soul Invictus

I am looking for the an understanding of what "come in" the flesh means. In Greek. Thanks

Mathetes

But then you are asking for an interpretation, not a translation.

I can't conceive of translating á¼?ν σαÏ?κὶ á¼?ληλυθότα other than "having-come-in-flesh". What does John really mean with this? Well, that's a totally different question. "Flesh" seems to be a code word along the NT (Paul, especially), that had some theological meaning of other for the Christian comunity, and that is not immediately obvious for an outsider. Countless articles have been written on what "according to the flesh" means. From what I understand after reading the NT, it is something like "the physical realm", as opposed to some "spiritual realm".

For a Greek reader not familiar with Christian texts, the phrase would probably look as ambiguous at it looks in English to us.

Here is the entry of "flesh" in a Perseus dictionary.

Iznomneak

If you go to the Blue letter bible:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Jo/1Jo004.html#top

And click on the "C" icon, it will show the original
Greek. You can then click on the "Strongs" column for
a more concise definition.

Ted Hoffman

Its not about what "come in the flesh" means in Greek. It is about what the author meant, or what the phrase would have meant in the prevailing or surrounding cultural and religious milieu.

En sarki is used interchangeably with kata sarka - both translated to mean "in flesh".

It means "in the sphere of the flesh": a lower realm than the spiritual one but higher than the one we occupy. This is as per the platonic cosmology. Read Doherty's Christ as Man for a better understanding.

Soul Invictus

Ted,

You conveyed my sentiments exactly. I am trying to learn what the author intended to convey and what the cultural/religious connotations are.

andrewcriddle

Which Platonic sources is this based on ?

These sort of ideas seem more neo-Platonic (or very late middle Platonic) than anything earlier.

Andrew Criddle

Kalvan

I think the problem you're having may be that "eληλυθoτα" just seems to mean "having come". IOW, the "in" is not integral to the verb form; it's a separate word. Inflected languages like Greek work differently than English with all its "helping" words.

Notsri

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe many - maybe most - commentators think 1 John, or at least parts of it, including the passage in question (4:2), was meant to counter the incipient docetic influence in the church. Of course, according the general docetic view, Jesus only seemed human; his humanity wasn’t real. 1 John, on the other hand, insists it was no illusion. This is stressed in vv. like 1:1: "our hands have handled [the Word of life]"; 1:7: "the blood of Jesus Christ"; 5:6: "this is he who came by water and blood - Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood"; and, of course, 4:2: "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh."

Atheos

I took 6 semesters of Koine Greek 20 years ago when I was getting my BA. I had once become fluent enough to read even Paul and Luke's stuff but now I'd do good to read some of John's stuff. However I did recognize...

I don't know that a greek scholar is what you're interested in though since you're already familiar with the "en sarki/kata sarka" parallel. Once you get into interpretation rather than translation you've left the somewhat black and white areas and ventured far into the shades of grey. Interpretations invariably mold themselves around preconceptions on the part of the interpreter.

For what it's worth I always favored "towards" or "in" for the preposition "en" and when I saw "kata" I thought more of "according to".

-Atheos